Slashdot Mirror

Also, I'd like to point out that the rolling blackouts were not enacted by Enron or other power providers; they were the work of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the still-highly-regulated utilities provider for most of California.

Power companies are not capricious monsters; they they're just another company, trying to sell a product for a profit. They have no interest in "shutting down your house/town/state"--quite the opposite, they want to sell to your house/town/state. They don't make any money if they can't sell their product.

I for one would welcome deregulating the entire power industry in California. That would introduce competition, which would inevitably result in my power being cheaper and more reliable.

More government control doesn't necessarily help that much.

Some of the most serious problems with defective products in recent history have occured when government was entirely in control. In some cases they screw up because, like business executives, they want to cut costs (providing HIV/AIDS infected blood for example). Sometimes they wind up killing people because they are too cautious. Scandals usually occur when actions kill people, not so much when inaction kills people (delays in FDA approval for new treatments cost thousands of lives).

If you think this is a problem with Capitalism then you should take a look at the sorts of things that went on in Communist countries like the USSR and still go on in places like Communist China.

Cover-ups make me sick.

I think that the only effective remedy for this sort of problem is greater transparency in both business and government. These kinds of problems thend to occur when the people involved think that they can get away with a cover-up.

You just don't get it (no offense intended personally). Copyright violation has been criminalized in a big way, with a small web of recent laws, (NET, DMCA, etc.). The next step for RIAA can just be to turn over long, long lists to US law enforcement and to tell them to prosecute these people right now for misdemeanors and felonies. Then it will be your and my tax dollars spent arresting, trying, and imprisoning these people. It used to be in practice these kind of violations required a civil suit, but no more since the No Electronic Theft Act http://www.cybercrime.gov/netsum.htm where the downloader is presumed to have made financial gain by copying for their own enjoyment. So, this criminal prosecution will be another form of corporate welfare. By your logic, there shouldn't be anyone in prison for non-violent drug offenses but instead the US has about one million such people in prison right now -- a figure which has slowly increased over the last couple of decades, with the US now having more people in prison per capita (6X - 10X more per capita) than any other industrialized country in the world. http://www.lionheart.org/prison_proj/corrections.h tml http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-23-00.html http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar01/priso nind020301.html (Personally I think this is wrong and ruining our state budgets and hurting people needlessly who should be treated and given jobs and education, but that is another story -- including how many big companies make money out of building prisons, running them, and cheap prison labor.) This RIAA prosecution will likely get really bad before it gets better. Who in the 1960s would have predicted a million drug users behind bars (mostly for marijuana, which is arguably less harmful than legal alcohol or cigarettes to society)? Answer me this -- why should RIAA stop short of a million people in jail for this? Bad press? Do you think they really care about this? Are people really going to stop listening to music from commercial artists if it gets really nasty? The US with the war on Iraq has already shown how a bit of flag waving can lead this country closer to political disaster destroying decades of international agreement building, not to mention spending hundreds of billions a year of borrowed funds to kill people and poison Iraqi streets with Depleted Uranium. When RIAA says anyone who copies or even defends copiers is also a criminal and supporting terrorists, and GW agrees, what are we going to do then? One can hope cooler heads prevail, but RIAA is gambling they will not. What does RIAA have to lose by trying? Anybody looking at the recent Iraq war can see how easily the media can mislead the US citizenry -- and who is going to have more sympathy in the mass media -- RIAA or "copyright violators"? RIAA and others have effectively purchased laws that aid them in maintaining their monopolies. It would be foolish business-wise for them to not try to profit from that investment (as immoral as I think that process may be). I can hope for the best, but very dark days ahead would not surprise me. And after all, a million college kids in prison for swapping MP3s will both decrease unemployment (prisoners aren't looking for jobs) and also increase prison building contracts and prison payrolls -- thus being a big boost for the economy and reelection campaigns in the short term (Even as long term consequences destroy our society). This issue (among many others) marks a turning point in our society -- for good or bad. Frankly, I don't know how it will come out. The recent Grokster ruling at least makes me a bit more hopeful than last week. But, just remember, that killing natives, enslaving blacks, gassing Jews, Gypsies, etc. for profit was all legal when it happened, even if it was immoral.

And no, I'm not trolling.

Please don't fall into the trap of believing that all Iraqis are necessarily tribal, tent-dwelling folk - Iraq has a sizeable, educated, (and often relatively westernised) middle class.

Remember, they had running water until the US and UK bombed them.

Many ways to abuse this system. If your interested in voting fraud, a story can be found on the bbc website about implementing online voting in the UK.

There was also a discussion about election reform and voting voting fraud last summer and can be found on the cato site.
Or you can watch the even in Real video

Many ways to abuse this system. If your interested in voting fraud, a story can be found on the bbc website about implementing online voting in the UK.

There was also a discussion about election reform and voting voting fraud last summer and can be found on the cato site.
Or you can watch the even in Real video

I am most concerned about government abuse of my personal data. The government is a monopoly and there is no choice. For that reason I support strong controls on government's use of personal data. Government, by its past action, has shown itself to be pretty nasty when it comes to respecting individual choice. For example, in California it is legal, by state law, to smoke medical marijuana with a prescription. This prescription is a piece of personal data. If the federal government gets its hands on it, you may be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.

The Cato Institute has done some great work on the difference between corporate databases and government databases. They also offer some insight on what happens when government turns to the private sector for information on citizens.

Economic growth topped the charts at 3.2% under Reagan, as opposed to 2.6% under Clinton and 2.5% under Carter.

The unemployment rate dropped .2% per year during the Reagan years, as opposed to an average raise of .2% before Reagan took office, and no change after he left office.

Every income bracket showed an increase in real income during the Reagan years. Families with income less than $50,000 saw a 5.9% increase in real income, while families making more than $75,000 saw only a 2.5% increase

The poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income during the Reagan years. This figure is -3% after Reagan left office.

Blacks and Minorities saw an 11% increase in income during the Reagan years, and only 2% increase after Reagan left office.

This data is especially significant when we take into account the fact that the Clinton economic legacy left us no better off after the bubble burst. In fact, we now know that many of the companies that were reporting economic "success" during the Clinton years were lying to us (see Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, and a host of other companies). Is that an admirable economic record?

The two most known cases are Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. You can google them yourself, but here is one of many articles describing their cases.

Since people can be tried and executed in secret under this act, there is no telling how many more have gotten in trouble like this.

Take a look at some of the analysis from the Cato institute:
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=a llcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=patriot+act&x=0&y =0

Don't know if it's still true anymore, but for a while the Intel Hyperthreading mode caused Windows to think you needed a special multiprocessor license.

However, all these monopoly games are getting tiresome.

Why doesn't the U.S. government simply declare win32 a de jure standard (it is a standard in every other regard), have the government take it by the doctrine of eminent domain and have a special microsoft tax funnel a compensatory $5bn/year to MS shareholders (which is what happens now anyway).

The net effect would probably be an improvement on the current state of affairs if it meant the win32 code base were liberated.

Well then Johnny, tell us why it is about oil. I'll point you to an article that explains why it isn't.

Read this

I read a few of your other posts, and you desperately need to become more informed before posting in the future. Reading this article is a start.

This was talked about, at one time, for the president to stop this paticular problem...but has not happend. If it did then it would be pointless to add the extras because they would be dropped more than accepted.

The line item veto was enacted by congress (amazingly) in 1996, and was used by clinton 82 times on 11 bills to save 2 billion dollars over the course of the year before it was declared unconstitutional. More info here, or through your friendly google affiliate.

Oh wait, that wouldn't help your point. -c

Not to forget the internationally banned chemical weapons the US government used to kill its its own people. See here and here.

so there need to be artificial controls put in place to redirect wealth.

There is a word for this. Its called "communism".

Trickle down economics are a load of bullshit

Here is a good read to debunk your argument against supply-side economics.

When the rich make money they invest it, rather than spending it. That's how they stay rich. When less affluent people make money, they spend it, because they have to do so in order to survive. They don't usually have investment portfolios.

First of all, the rich investing money does help the poor. When they invest money, interest rates drop, and the companies that employ the poor prosper with the infusion of cash. This means the poor are getting pay raises and can afford a house. Second, if the poor started following what the rich do, maybe they wouldn't be poor any more. This means the poor should have investment portfolios and should be investing instead of spending. In a free market, everybody has the chance.

the free market naturally supports the 'rich get richer' concept

The "rich get righer" concept is baloney. The correct way to phrase it is "the rich continue to do the things that made them rich, and the poor continue to do the things that made them poor". The free market supports anybody who goes out and does things to make them rich. Artificial controls are not the answer -- hard work and financial intellect are.

Average economic growth during the Reagan years was 3.2%, compared to 1.3% by Bush Sr. and 2.6% by Clinton (through his 1st term, when this report was issued, we know now that any growth in his second term was completely artificial, as evicenced by the dot-com burst that occured in his last year, and the amount of accounting scandals that date back into the Clinton years).

The poorest 20% experienced a 6% increase in income during the Reagan years, compared to a 3% loss in the post-Reagan years.

Minorities experience a 11% increase in household income during the Reagan years, compared to a 2% increase in the post-Reagan years. (Whites were +11% during Reagan, -3.8% after Reagan)

Everybody across all income ranges experienced a growth in income. It was not the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer", it was "the rich and the poor got richer".

Federal Revenue grew 24% during the 8 year Reagan period. Defense spending only grew .6% as a percentage of the federal deficit.

What moral right do you have to punish a woman for choosing an abortion?

What moral right do we have to punish anybody for anything? It makes no sense to punish a murderer, protest a war on the grounds of humanity, and then turn around and agree that women should have the right to murder thier children without any recourse.

The Cato Institute has a long study (actually an exeprt from a book -- see link below) documenting the systematic increase in the use of the SSN as a national identifyer. A summary of the paper is here or you can just grab the 166kb PDF

For the click-shy, here's the text of the executive summary:

To combat terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked Congress to "enhance" the government's ability to conduct domestic surveillance of citizens. The Justice Department's legislative proposals would give federal law enforcement agents new access to personal information contained in business and school records. Before acting on those legislative proposals, lawmakers should pause to consider the extent to which the lives of ordinary Americans already are monitored by the federal government.

Over the years, the federal government has instituted a variety of data collection programs that compel the production, retention, and dissemination of personal information about every American citizen. Linked through an individual's Social Security number, these labor, medical, education and financial databases now empower the federal government to obtain a detailed portrait of any person: the checks he writes, the types of causes he supports, and what he says "privately" to his doctor. Despite widespread public concern about preserving privacy, these data collection systems have been enacted in the name of "reducing fraud" and "promoting efficiency" in various government programs.

Having exposed most areas of American life to ongoing government scrutiny and recording, Congress is now poised to expand and universalize federal tracking of citizen life. The inevitable consequence of such constant surveillance, however, is metastasizing government control over society. If that happens, our government will have perverted its most fundamental mission and destroyed the privacy and liberty that it was supposed to protect.

If you're curious, I originally bumped into this somewhere in Bill Moyer's archive

- a somewhat A, AC

The Cato Institute has a long study (actually an exeprt from a book -- see link below) documenting the systematic increase in the use of the SSN as a national identifyer. A summary of the paper is here or you can just grab the 166kb PDF

For the click-shy, here's the text of the executive summary:

To combat terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked Congress to "enhance" the government's ability to conduct domestic surveillance of citizens. The Justice Department's legislative proposals would give federal law enforcement agents new access to personal information contained in business and school records. Before acting on those legislative proposals, lawmakers should pause to consider the extent to which the lives of ordinary Americans already are monitored by the federal government.

Over the years, the federal government has instituted a variety of data collection programs that compel the production, retention, and dissemination of personal information about every American citizen. Linked through an individual's Social Security number, these labor, medical, education and financial databases now empower the federal government to obtain a detailed portrait of any person: the checks he writes, the types of causes he supports, and what he says "privately" to his doctor. Despite widespread public concern about preserving privacy, these data collection systems have been enacted in the name of "reducing fraud" and "promoting efficiency" in various government programs.

Having exposed most areas of American life to ongoing government scrutiny and recording, Congress is now poised to expand and universalize federal tracking of citizen life. The inevitable consequence of such constant surveillance, however, is metastasizing government control over society. If that happens, our government will have perverted its most fundamental mission and destroyed the privacy and liberty that it was supposed to protect.

If you're curious, I originally bumped into this somewhere in Bill Moyer's archive

- a somewhat A, AC

The Cato Institute has a long study (actually an exeprt from a book -- see link below) documenting the systematic increase in the use of the SSN as a national identifyer. A summary of the paper is here or you can just grab the 166kb PDF

For the click-shy, here's the text of the executive summary:

To combat terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked Congress to "enhance" the government's ability to conduct domestic surveillance of citizens. The Justice Department's legislative proposals would give federal law enforcement agents new access to personal information contained in business and school records. Before acting on those legislative proposals, lawmakers should pause to consider the extent to which the lives of ordinary Americans already are monitored by the federal government.

Over the years, the federal government has instituted a variety of data collection programs that compel the production, retention, and dissemination of personal information about every American citizen. Linked through an individual's Social Security number, these labor, medical, education and financial databases now empower the federal government to obtain a detailed portrait of any person: the checks he writes, the types of causes he supports, and what he says "privately" to his doctor. Despite widespread public concern about preserving privacy, these data collection systems have been enacted in the name of "reducing fraud" and "promoting efficiency" in various government programs.

Having exposed most areas of American life to ongoing government scrutiny and recording, Congress is now poised to expand and universalize federal tracking of citizen life. The inevitable consequence of such constant surveillance, however, is metastasizing government control over society. If that happens, our government will have perverted its most fundamental mission and destroyed the privacy and liberty that it was supposed to protect.

If you're curious, I originally bumped into this somewhere in Bill Moyer's archive

- a somewhat A, AC

That is why they oppose tax cuts which end up increasing tax revenue from the resulting economic growth.

Tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth, as has been made clear during this Presidency. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts and the economy had done nothing but get worse. All we are left with is interest on a soaring national debt. Even Greenspan stated that the most recent tax cuts were a bad idea unless balanced with tax increases in other areas to offset the revenue loss.

Clinton added 2 trillion onto the debt before the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal responsibility.

Either the President gets credit/blame or the Congress does. I'm tired of the Republican bullshit of shifting blame/credit. According to the right wing, when the economy sucks, it's the Democrats' fault, whether they control the House, Senate, or Presidency. If the Democrats don't control any of them, then it's the fault of some previous Democratic administration. Republican Presidents are powerless to stop spending by Congressional Democrats (we'll just conveniently ignore veto powers). If the economy is rosy, well that's attributed to Republicans in the House, Senate, or Oval Office. If there are none, it's the result of deficit spending under some prior Republican administration. Well, Bush pushed through his tax cut and he is the one that proposed the budget that is bleeding red ink. The economy did well under Clinton because he was not a dumbass who pushed through tax cuts while increasing spending.

Let's examine the "it's-not-the-government's-money" crap that Bush spewed throughout his campaign. We were in an economic boom. Wages were up. Unemployment was down. Of course the IRS was bringing in more income taxes than needed. Ever heard of saving for a rainy day? Well Bush obviously has not because he immediately pushed through a big tax cut. Now, lo and behold, we no longer have enough money to cover the budget that he proposed. He wants to lower taxes when we are in an economic boom because the government shouldn't have a surplus (and he would never consider taking any of that surplus to pay down the debt). When the economy is lagging, he wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Just when does he propose increasing taxes? We cut in boom times. We cut during recessions.

Even the right-wing Cato institute says that Bush Budget Reveals Serious Overspending Problem calling his administration "the biggest spending administration in decades."

Give George W Bush the line-item veto.

So that he line-item veto funding for environmental and social programs while signing legislation for military build-ups? No thanks. He lacks both the morality and intelligence to use such power.

By the way, George H.W. Bush is not "George Sr" that you called him. He's not a Sr, and his son is not a Jr, as they actually have different names

I couldn't care less. I'll just call his won "Dubya" to avoid the typing.

My last post was labeled as a troll, I am offended. Hey I dislike atm fees as much as anybody else, but I don't see how forcing someone to provide a free service for the rest of us is going to help. Here is one argument against ATM fees. Its excerpt is lifted from the Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-27-98.html

"...If the senator were to look a little closer at the issue, he might realize that the recent boom in the ATM industry -- which has made life far more convenient for consumers -- is the result of increased ATM fees. And if consumers are prohibited from paying for ATM services, they may lose the vast ATM network they now enjoy.

Consumers in our fast-paced society value quick, convenient access to their money. The first people to realize that were not banks but private entrepreneurs, who saw that they could make a buck by placing ATMs in convenient locations. It was the ATM fee that allowed those companies, which have no other way to recoup their costs for providing and operating the machines, to meet consumer demand. From 1995 to 1996 the number of ATMs ordered from manufacturers increased 40 percent. The number of orders during that time exceeded the orders from 1991 to 1993. Approximately half of those orders were placed, not by "big banks," but by non-banking companies that make most of their revenue from ATM fees.

The fact that this growth occurred after the two largest ATM networks in the country (Cirrus and Plus) rescinded their ban on surcharges is no coincidence. ATMs in more convenient locations mean that consumers save time and money. Bank customers demand this convenience, and they are willing to pay for it.

In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500.

But consumers often say, "I used to get this service without a fee, so why do I have to pay now?" The reason is that ATMs are not free. In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500. Economist David Humphrey of Florida State University found that, although early studies of ATMs predicted savings for banks, the reality is that banks are actually taking a loss to provide this convenience. The consulting firm of McKinsey & Co. estimates that ATMs have cost the industry $1.5 billion and saved only $200 million.

Banks, like all businesses, want to make money. If they are going to lose money on a service, they will not provide it. With ATM fees, banks and non-bank ATM owners can place ATMs in places that were once not cost justified. Those places include grocery stores, convenience stores, airports and many other sites where people are happy to pay for quick access to cash. As a result, consumers don't have to drive 20 minutes across town to get money out of the bank; instead, they can choose to pay the fee for the convenience of ATMs.

Many smaller banks also complain because they cannot support vast ATM networks, which are common to larger banks. At the Senate hearings, Wayne Cottle, president of the Dean Co-operative Bank in Franklin, Massachusetts, expressed his fear "that there will be a substantial deposit migration away from my institution." In other words, "I cannot compete in this economy, therefore the government should protect me." Is that any way to run our economy?

In the American economy, firms that do not provide the services consumers demand are replaced by those that do. What has made this county's economy so prosperous is its refusal to interfere with competition and innovation. Competition is not something the banking industry lacks, given its 200,000 ATMs and 10,000 financial institutions. That free and open competition led to the invention of the ATM in the first place.

Another important fact to remember is that getting access to your money without a fee is still very easy. Customers can write a check, use a debit card or credit card or simply visit their own bank's ATMs. Those who value convenience less still have other options for getting money, while those who would prefer to pay for this convenience can do so. If Senator D'Amato gets his wish, consumers will lose not only the fees that he despises so much but also the large network of ATMs on which consumers have come to rely. "

For a longer pdf report, go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-036.pdf

My last post was labeled as a troll, I am offended. Hey I dislike atm fees as much as anybody else, but I don't see how forcing someone to provide a free service for the rest of us is going to help. Here is one argument against ATM fees. Its excerpt is lifted from the Cato institute at http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-27-98.html

"...If the senator were to look a little closer at the issue, he might realize that the recent boom in the ATM industry -- which has made life far more convenient for consumers -- is the result of increased ATM fees. And if consumers are prohibited from paying for ATM services, they may lose the vast ATM network they now enjoy.

Consumers in our fast-paced society value quick, convenient access to their money. The first people to realize that were not banks but private entrepreneurs, who saw that they could make a buck by placing ATMs in convenient locations. It was the ATM fee that allowed those companies, which have no other way to recoup their costs for providing and operating the machines, to meet consumer demand. From 1995 to 1996 the number of ATMs ordered from manufacturers increased 40 percent. The number of orders during that time exceeded the orders from 1991 to 1993. Approximately half of those orders were placed, not by "big banks," but by non-banking companies that make most of their revenue from ATM fees.

The fact that this growth occurred after the two largest ATM networks in the country (Cirrus and Plus) rescinded their ban on surcharges is no coincidence. ATMs in more convenient locations mean that consumers save time and money. Bank customers demand this convenience, and they are willing to pay for it.

In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500.

But consumers often say, "I used to get this service without a fee, so why do I have to pay now?" The reason is that ATMs are not free. In the past, when there were no charges for ATM use, there were far fewer ATMs. A low-cost ATM needs at least 3,000 transactions a month to break even. With a fee, that number is cut to 500. Economist David Humphrey of Florida State University found that, although early studies of ATMs predicted savings for banks, the reality is that banks are actually taking a loss to provide this convenience. The consulting firm of McKinsey & Co. estimates that ATMs have cost the industry $1.5 billion and saved only $200 million.

Banks, like all businesses, want to make money. If they are going to lose money on a service, they will not provide it. With ATM fees, banks and non-bank ATM owners can place ATMs in places that were once not cost justified. Those places include grocery stores, convenience stores, airports and many other sites where people are happy to pay for quick access to cash. As a result, consumers don't have to drive 20 minutes across town to get money out of the bank; instead, they can choose to pay the fee for the convenience of ATMs.

Many smaller banks also complain because they cannot support vast ATM networks, which are common to larger banks. At the Senate hearings, Wayne Cottle, president of the Dean Co-operative Bank in Franklin, Massachusetts, expressed his fear "that there will be a substantial deposit migration away from my institution." In other words, "I cannot compete in this economy, therefore the government should protect me." Is that any way to run our economy?

In the American economy, firms that do not provide the services consumers demand are replaced by those that do. What has made this county's economy so prosperous is its refusal to interfere with competition and innovation. Competition is not something the banking industry lacks, given its 200,000 ATMs and 10,000 financial institutions. That free and open competition led to the invention of the ATM in the first place.

Another important fact to remember is that getting access to your money without a fee is still very easy. Customers can write a check, use a debit card or credit card or simply visit their own bank's ATMs. Those who value convenience less still have other options for getting money, while those who would prefer to pay for this convenience can do so. If Senator D'Amato gets his wish, consumers will lose not only the fees that he despises so much but also the large network of ATMs on which consumers have come to rely. "

For a longer pdf report, go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-036.pdf

Look at the 4th ammendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

You really need to get a copy of the constitution (many copies, actually), and pass them around to everyone you meet. I have a bunch of the Pocket Constition books from the Cato Institute:

(http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.c gi?page=dicon.html&cart_id=)

I particularly like giving them out to the over-zealous security screeners at the airpoint...

"Subsidies are not the only government benefit. As you point out, tax breaks are not subsidies. But they DO give these companies a financial boost. As do fees imposed on your telephone bill by the government, which aren't taxes because the money goes straight to the phone companies."

Actually Tax breaks can be subsidies. The law isn't always straight line on the point, but it can be.

WTO Sides With European Union In Tax Break Dispute

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND:A CASE STUDY IN CORPORATE WELFARE

Tax breaks for corporations are welfare for the wealthy

The Hidden Entitlements

There's more were that came from, and like all things legal/political quite a bit of reading is required to discern things. Something the original poster hasn't demonstrated yet.

I'm worried that if, in the future, I expouse beliefs that are opposed to what the government believes, I will become labeled a "terrorist", and will have my rights unilaterally suspended.

Where was the outcry from the left when Clinton/Reno were attacking Americans with tanks and using FBI snipers to shoot American women and children? As far as I have heard, Bush has not summarily executed any Americans yet.

Apparently you are only concerned with your left-wing speech being oppressed by a right-wing government, while the reverse occurred for nearly a decade with nary a whisper from you.

Perhaps those of you on the right and left should realize that the Reps/Dems do not give a FU** about the Constitution or any ideals of freedom and liberty, and seriously examine the Libertarian Party.

Yes, but fraud and error are common to *all* methods of registrations, not uniquely motor voter.

Anyone from Chicago (me) can tell you that multiple voting ("vote early, vote often") and dead people have gone on for a long time, and often that's not fixed because it benefits the politicians in power. Registration by mail has been available for some time in many states (also now required by motor voter, I didn't know that); at least at the DMV, you have the registrant face-to-face with ID in their hand. I'm intrigued by the critics who say the state can't verify identity (as opposed to eligibility to vote) at the DMV -- who the hell are the states passing out driver's licenses to? Terrorists, in the case of 9/11. Their uncertainty as to identity is a separate problem.

Voter eligibility must be verified, usually after the form is submitted, which is why most states require you to register, say, a month before the election. (ND doesn't require registration at all!) Whether they do their duty is up to them. That some complain about motor voter because they are now "overwhelmed" by applications from their own citizens is shameful. As for the ones who examined their rolls and found multiple registrations and dead peopl, well, good -- isn't examining their rolls what they're supposed to do anyway? Shouldn't they question their own procedures if such contamination continues? How is motor voter to blame for their carelessness, and how many of the bogus registrations predate motor voter? The critics drone on about how terrible registration fraud is -- and I agree -- while assuming rather than proving the act's causality.

Politicially, I can tell you that most of the (quiet) resistance in Congress to motor voter was from Congresspeople fully aware that greater registration would hurt their party (greater registration and turnout reliably favor Democrats -- quite reasonably, opponents of the law charged supporters with being politically motivated, and I'm sure they partially were). The fraud complaint was an insincere or inconsistent argument that goes more to altering some specifics of the law, not its fundamental thrust. Perhaps the best argument IMHO was that Congress shouldn't be telling the states how to handle its voting registration, though I think the law strikes an appropriate balance given historic federal intervention in voting practices to fix state tendencies to erect hurdles to maintain the status quo.

To give you an idea of the political nature of the resistance, some states read the NVRA as requiring them only to register people for federal elections, misleading some to half-register and be able to vote only a partial ballot!

More details. At a minimum the act makes life a lot easier for people like me who move from state to state and appreciate uniform requirements. I doubt the law is perfect, esp. as it is still quite young, but endorse of the basic premise that registration should be simple and convenient, as well as accurate. Increasing registration may or may not yet be producing more voters, but I can say from experience that the potential for get-out-the-vote drives is much greater when most people are eligible rather than being precluded by something they forgot to do a months earlier (and get-out-the-vote people can skip the extra get-people-registered drive). The only way to overcome voter apathy, the principal cause of low turnout, is to draw more and more citizens into the process so that voting becomes easy, familiar, and desired.

Well that's the point of this case, to determine just where exactly the line is to be drawn.

That's partially true, but this case goes further than that. Those on the side of the defense are arguing that there should be no line at all. They are claiming there should be no special category of "commercial speech," that speech by a company should have the same protection as speech by any individual. However, it would be correct to state that companies could then say anything with impunity, after all, even you and I with the full protection of the first amendment can still be sued for defamatory, slanderous, negligent, fraudulent or other tortuous speech of one kind or another.

The issue is whether or not a special category of less-protected "commercial" speech should exist. Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion to 517 U,S, 484 (1996), plainly says that, "I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech. Indeed, some historical materials suggest to the contrary. " See also this article by Jonathan W. Emord which argues in favor of abolishing the distinction. (The seminal article espousing this position seems to be A. Kozinski and S. Banner, "Who's Afraid of Com mercial Speech?", but I can't find it online.)

His description is horribly flawed... A true flat tax will never touch personal income. It taxes goods and services at time of sale, a true flat tax.

Here's the REAL example of a flat tax at work (15%):

Joe ($20,000): Joe takes home all $20K, but he rents his home for $100 a month, his service tax would be $15/mo paid to his landlord. Joe has a cellphone and his bill is $40 a month, his service tax would be $6/mo.

Starting to get the idea? The idea of the deduction goes away, after all you do not pay taxes based on how long you have had something. If your company bought a copier at $10K and resold it for $2K in five years, it is obviously not a good investment item.

At the higher end of the scale, this tax is just as fair as at the lowest common denominator... because wealthy people tend to spend money on high ticket items and services (ditto for business expenses). What is being taxed is not the income, but the service or good AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION.

Naturally this type of tax creates more year-round paperwork for IRS people because transactions occur all the time. It is also treated with disdain because anyone can get around it simply by not paying the tax or re-introducing bartering to our economic system. That would not be healthy for the IRS and government services (even though centuries of history proclaim that is is perfectly acceptable for economics).

more info on the FLAT TAX vs SALES TAX debate

Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.

Yes, and the myth that it is a "well-respected theory within the scientific community" is one of them.

There has been a great deal of misinformation, propaganda and flat-out Junk Science on this issue disseminated in the last decade or so -- including statements from so-called "scientific societies" that turn out to contain nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al.

The FACTS remain that there is NO scientific consensus on the issue, regardless Al Gore's unsubstantiated claims in his Earth in the Balance polemic. The only reliable data on the subject, a Gallup Poll, shows that the majority of climatologists do not believe that global warming is human-caused.

You are correct that information on Global Warming is easy to find, such as here, here, here and here among others too numerous to list.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but "global warming" isn't real.

Well, "Not True" isn't much to work with but I'm willing to admit that I was pretty broad in my synopsis of the telco monopoly history.

Perhaps this will help.

--K.

The washington think-tank CATO held a conference on 11/14 called "Telecom and Broadband Policy After the Market Meltdown" where they invited industry analysts to debate the effectiveness of industry and government to solve the complete fuck-up that is home broadband in our time.

The American telecommunications sector went into a freefall in 2002. Telecom stocks tanked as once proud industry giants and smaller carriers alike were financially decimated. Numerous providers were forced to declare bankruptcy. And the reverberations were felt well beyond the boundaries of the telecom sector as upstream and downstream industries took a hit as well.

What were the causes of this market meltdown? Was it driven purely by misguided corporate decisionmaking and bad business models, or is public policy more to blame? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to rejuvenate this sector by encouraging increased competition, innovation and investment, but most industry watchers have been dissatisfied with the sluggish pace of change.

The washington think-tank CATO held a conference on 11/14 called "Telecom and Broadband Policy After the Market Meltdown" where they invited industry analysts to debate the effectiveness of industry and government to solve the complete fuck-up that is home broadband in our time.

The American telecommunications sector went into a freefall in 2002. Telecom stocks tanked as once proud industry giants and smaller carriers alike were financially decimated. Numerous providers were forced to declare bankruptcy. And the reverberations were felt well beyond the boundaries of the telecom sector as upstream and downstream industries took a hit as well.

What were the causes of this market meltdown? Was it driven purely by misguided corporate decisionmaking and bad business models, or is public policy more to blame? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to rejuvenate this sector by encouraging increased competition, innovation and investment, but most industry watchers have been dissatisfied with the sluggish pace of change.

Furthermore, the US has been subsidising drug development and low drug prices in Canada and Europe by allowing high drug prices here to drive innovation. As long as we're chasing pie in the sky, let's force those socialist free riders to start paying their fair share!

Too bad you don't have decent facts to back that up. A study by the Cato Institute shows that given the same usage patterns, Canadians would pay 3% more[PDF file] than their U.S. counterparts.

There's even a minority staff report[PDF] from the U.S. House of Representatives that states, in part:
"The drug industry's own testimony indicates that despite the high drug prices in the United States and the low drug prices in other countries, many drug companies are moving research from the United States to other countries," and that "more than two thirds of new drugs are developed by countries headquartered outside the United States."

Also note that some reasons given for the drugs that are lower priced in Canada include reduced liability for pharmacomps, which means reduced risks; and stricter controls on pharmaceutical marketing and advertising, an activity in the United States that pharmaceutical companies are spending amounts equal to or greater than they are spending on research and development.

Never mind that a majority of the research done by and for drug companies is done by the NIH, which is entirely funded by taxpayers. The drug companies take the most promising/profitable looking developments from them finalize what research is left to do, apply patents, and profit for the next 20 years (or 25 with patent extensions). Then they reformulate ("Now take only once a day!") and re-patent.

Get out of the mindset that drug companies care about your health. They don't. They care about making a profit - and if that means applying a submarine patent to a cure in order to prevent others from developing it, and marketing the hell out of something that temporarily relieves the symptoms until their lucrative patent is up, don't think they won't do this.

You want innovation in the drug industry? Shorten the patent protection period while broadening the coverage, so that a minor change in an inactive component of the drug doesn't qualify for a whole new patent.

(For the interested, a detailed chart of freq. allocations.)

Yes, by "double" I referred to the "loan," if you prefer of add'l spectrum to broadcasters. There will be at least a decade before the spectrum returns, assuming the broadcasters don't figure out the political means to squat on it by then. They have to return it in 2006 or 85% market penetration, which clearly won't happen until later, esp. in non-early adopter areas.

There has been some debate over whether stations can exploit additional space within their bandwidth, used for neither digital nor analog signals, for commercial purposes. I'm not sure how that came out.

Your analogy to early TV is inept. The introduction of TV forced no one to buy anything unless they wanted to participate. Same with color, which was cleverly compatible with B&W TV's. Opt-outs did not subsidize early adopters, and improvements did not needlessly obsolete existing equipment. Now, with DTV we face losing our equipment -- unless we buy $$ converters -- and of higher cable fees as they transition to digital, etc. Already digital tuners are supposedly to be required for all new TV's whether you need one or not (most of us have cable). Moreover, HDTV also portends a new round of DRM that may ultimately peel off some fair use rights.

I don't mind the advance to DTV at all, indeed it is probably a good thing. Many people do seem to want it, but -- and this is key -- I'm not at all interested in subsidizing them or the manufacturers in their entertainment or profits, respectively. I would like converting to me my choice, quaint notion though that may be, and will hold off as long as possible until the people who just absolutely positively have to have DTV rigth away have paid for the bleeding edge of technology and the prices drop.

Thankfully we don't just do things that people "want" is offensive. I don't know how you distinguish between "we" and "people," but people were excited as hell about TV's debut. DTV is more ho-hum despite years of promotion and hype. More perceptive souls have questioned whether DTV is a rip-off for the ordinary consumer here or here or here or various other places not preoccupied with how neat DTV is --- or what a favor they're doing for the little "people."

Cato Institute's 2nd Amendment Studies is a listing of some of the venerable think tank's pieces and commentary on the matter. In particular, Cato Policy Analysis No. 109 (though not linked to in the above page) is a classic study by Manhattan's former assistant district attorney David B. Kopel from July 1988. Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 from October 1997 is also quite good. Both are extensively well-sourced with complete citation information.

Cato Institute's 2nd Amendment Studies is a listing of some of the venerable think tank's pieces and commentary on the matter. In particular, Cato Policy Analysis No. 109 (though not linked to in the above page) is a classic study by Manhattan's former assistant district attorney David B. Kopel from July 1988. Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 from October 1997 is also quite good. Both are extensively well-sourced with complete citation information.

Cato Institute's 2nd Amendment Studies is a listing of some of the venerable think tank's pieces and commentary on the matter. In particular, Cato Policy Analysis No. 109 (though not linked to in the above page) is a classic study by Manhattan's former assistant district attorney David B. Kopel from July 1988. Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 from October 1997 is also quite good. Both are extensively well-sourced with complete citation information.

CATO has some of the best independent studies and reviews of all sides of the issue. Very thouroughly done and documented so you can review the data for yourself. *SPOILER* Their conclusions support gun freedom quite strongly.*/SPOILER*

although it is from 1988 this is still the best paper I've ever read on the subject. He covers all of the pertinent points and more importantly he lists his refereces.

Or more specifically:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.ht ml

Or something short like: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Or this has both sides of the issue laid out a bit http://www.ncpa.org:80/bothside/crime.html

Or more specifically:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.ht ml

Or something short like: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Or this has both sides of the issue laid out a bit http://www.ncpa.org:80/bothside/crime.html

Or more specifically:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.ht ml

Or something short like: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Or this has both sides of the issue laid out a bit http://www.ncpa.org:80/bothside/crime.html

Actually, here is the data, published by Regulation magazine, an adjunct to the Cato Institute. The full regression portion of the document is hairy, so here's the Conclusion:

CONCLUSION the results of this research suggest that the increase in light truck use in the United States in recent years has helped to reduce motor vehicle fatalities. During the years of our sample period (1994-1997), light truck registrations per driver increased five percent. Our elasticity estimates indicate this increase consequently lowered single-vehicle fatalities per driver by 7.5 percent and multiple- vehicle fatalities per driver by two percent. These figures translate into about 2,000 lives saved between 1994 and 1997 because of the increase in light truck use.

As for environmental concerns, I suppose your point is true if you're comparing new to new, but comparing a new SUV to a sedan just a few years older, the data changes. If you compare a diesel SUV to a current standard sedan, it changes even further. If you're comparing a RAV-4 to a Cadillac Deville, well, you get the idea; it's not as simple as it seems.

From the tenor of your post, it sounds like there's something more than cold, hard data in your equation...read the report all the way through and make your own conclusion.

Amnesty says US leads in human rights violations following September 11

Released secret documents prove US involvement in Chile

A very brief timeline of US intervention in Latin America and the Carribean

A Cato institute report linking terrorism against the US directly to US interventionist policies worldwide

The Age of Imperialism: an online history of the US

I could keep looking up stuff like this for hours, but I'm getting bored and depressed. Try on google, look for US massacre, intervention, human rights abuse, etc. We Americans need to educate ourselves on what our government has been doing in our name while we weren't looking.

The catalog people say USPS discriminates against bulk mail -- but see a bright future, as bulk mail becomes a larger fraction of all mailings, their muscle will increase. Yippee.

There are lots of sources arguing that first-class subsidizes bail; assuming everyone is honest, the difference may a question of one's accounting practices. Remember Enron?

Cato has an interesting and, unsurprisingly, highly critical profile of USPS going back to the 18th century.

One note: Americans like to savage their postal system, but many don't know how cheap their first-class stamps are relative to many or most other nations, especially consider you pay one rate from one end to the other of a physically large country. Also, the furor over each penny-or-so price increase (and I'm not kidding, at least they always find someone to fulminate on the news) generally ignores the effects of inflation that erode the real price.

They're not perfect, but they're not that bad, either. There is a long list of other governmental functions I would criticize more harshly, anyway.

But no, I don't like junk mail. Be sure to sign up for the Direct Marketing Association's "Mail Preference Service" -- I think it helps, I hope.

Ya the Cato Institue only likes natural monopolies.

There's a reason that a "protect the status quo first, ask questions later" attitude in politics is called "reactionary", O my brothers. It might have something to do with reacting with one's gut rather than thinking with one's head.

Those who actually read the Cato paper "Unnatural Monopoly" will note that it contains substantial criticism of the doctrine of "natural monopoly" -- a criticism which the title reflects.

(The traditional economic argument is that a telephone system is a "natural monopoly", chiefly due to the costs of laying cable. What the Cato report reveals is that regardless of any inherent monopolistic tendency there might be in telecoms, it is government policy and not market action which created and sustained the monopoly.)

Beside its powers to regulate rates to ensure they were "just and reasonable," the FCC was also given the power to restrict entry into the marketplace. Potential competitors were, and still are required to obtain from the FCC a "certificate of public convenience and necessity." The intent of the licensing process was again to prevent "wasteful duplication" and "unneeded competition."

The point of the monopoly argument in my above post was not, however, to argue for the abolition of the FCC or telecoms regulation. (Indeed, I do not believe that the appropriate way to go from government monopoly to market is to simply turn the monopoly loose. In this, I disagree with what I take to be Cato's position.)

My point was, rather, to point out that insofar as telecoms "companies" are government-created monopolistic agencies, they cannot be given the full "rights" of a market participant. A government agency has only those rights that are granted it by the people; it is not permitted to fulfil its ends by whatever means it chooses. In the matter of personal records -- we do not permit the Internal Revenue to sell the contents of tax returns to financial companies to boost its income; similarly we cannot permit a government-spawned, regulation-protected telecoms agency to sell taxpayer records to "improve service."

Ya the Cato Institue only likes natural monopolies.

but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...

As a libertarian myself, I feel the need to forestall an argument that some of my fellow libertarians might make: that such laws cannot be justly applied to the telecommunications market; that they are an improper restraint on legitimate trade, or free speech; etc. The fact of the matter is that the telecoms system as we know it is a construct of government regulation. Its "privatized" structure is merely a corporatized extension of national governments, like the old colonial "Companies" (think "British East India Company", etc.) which enriches investors whilst furthering government policy.

Free-market telecommunications have been systematically denied any chance to establish themselves. Most Americans believe that AT&T was a monopoly created by the market and dismantled by the government, for instance, but this is far from the case. The Cato report "Unnatural Monopoly" details the United States Federal Government's actions in creating the AT&T telephone monopoly, for various political and nonmarket purposes. In doing so, members of Congress went so far as to characterize market competition as "duplicative, destructive, and wasteful." (Many European nations did not even bother to allow private telecommunications systems, building them as government monopolies. In some cases, these were later "privatized" in such a way as to preserve the majority of their monopoly positions, while making money for rich investors. This is not a free market; it is state-capitalism.)

Much the same applies to radio, of course: the FCC and its ilk created an artificial scarcity of the radio spectrum, parceling out freedom of speech via radio as if photons were the government's own creation. Those who choose to speak without a government license to do so, it criminalizes as "pirates". Radio equipment is inexpensive and not difficult to maintain; it is radio licensing that reserves the medium as a playground for large corporations. Moreover, when the government has the power to license speech, it has the power to censor, say the courts: hence the countless "words you can't say on television" though you may speak them freely in a meeting-hall.

(Too US-centric for you? Here, try Panama, where the telecoms monopoly is using government threats to force ISPs to block competition in the form of voice-over-IP services.)

The telecommunications industry is not a free market; and its constructs are not private enterprises, no matter how many investors they may enrich (or bankrupt). They were created and empowered by regulation. Their markets are patrolled by censorship. They are firms granted the power to tax; government agencies granted stock-market symbols and an oligopolic pretense at competition. As such, they are no more entitled to sell data about their taxpayers (aka "customers") than is, say, the Internal Revenue Service.

Mail delivery has not always been a government monopoly. In the early 1800s private railroads and steamboats gave rise to private companies offering mail delivery services. The Private Express Statutes of 1845 put an end to that service between cities. Private companies still delivered within cities until the Postal Code of 1872 barred them from doing so.